The rise of social media has presented a new problem for the legal system and one it is still grappling with.

That's why in 2013, the then attorney general Dominic Grieve, announced plans to discourage social media users on Facebook and Twitter from jeopardising court cases by publishing potentially prejudicial comments.

Rosie Darbyshire was found dead in Preston last week and her boyfriend has been charged with her murder

In that document, former attorney general Jeremy Wright QC, highlighted a murder trial in 2015 which was halted after the judge decided that comments made online meant the defendants could not have a fair trial.

Evidence is still being gathered on that consultation and its findings are yet to be published.

Social media users can now be warned if their comment risk a fair trial

How can comments prejudice trials?

The Contempt of Court 1981 lays out clear guidelines for the media when reporting on criminal cases and these guidelines also apply to any publisher, and that includes any individual using social media as the companies themselves, such as Facebook and Twitter, are not publishers and are therefore not subject to the same liabilities as publishers of newspapers.

Every junior reporter learns the guiding principals of the Contempt of Court Act by heart but put simply it means that nothing should be published that might mean the defendant does not get a fair trial.

That includes details of any previous convictions or anything that implies they are guilty.

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve introduced a system of legal warnings to social media users

Prior to a trial, the media can only publish a limited number of details about the case, such as the particulars of the charge.

An important principle of open justice is that, in most circumstances, the name of the defendant should also be published.

Many media organisations have chosen not to share their stories about the ongoing court case of former police chief David Duckenfield

At the start of the current case of a former police chief charged over the Hillsborough disaster, the judge made it clear jurors were to ignore social media comments.

And campaigners have repeatedly asked people not to comment on the trial in case they hamper the chances of a fair trial.

Many media organisations have chosen not to share their stories on this case on social media in order to avoid the risk of prejudicial comments being made on an ongoing case.

What does the law have to say?

In 2013, the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, was very clear that social media comments could have a harmful effect.

He said: "Blogs and social media sites like Twitter and Facebook mean individuals can now reach thousands of people with a single tweet or post.

"In days gone by, it was only the mainstream media that had the opportunity to bring information relating to a court case to such a large group of people that it could put a court case at risk.

"That is no longer the case and is why I have decided to publish the advisories that I have previously only issued to the media.

"This is not about telling people what they can or cannot talk about on social media; quite the opposite in fact – it's designed to help facilitate commentary in a lawful way.

"I hope that by making this information available to the public at large, we can help stop people from inadvertently breaking the law, and make sure that cases are tried on the evidence, not what people have found online."

Trending

Garstang school left grieving after sudden death of Year 11 pupil

Bill Shankly Hotel set to kick off within weeks

Everything you need to know about Alabama Rot in Lancashire after disease kills dog in Chorley

All you need to know about Lancashire County Council's plans to save £77m from its budget